spin

Wow, did you see that curve?

I guess it takes a man who accepts his responsibilities. Passing the buck isn't acceptable damage control.

You need to be grounded in reality. It could have been any god-fearing mass-murderer by proxy, presidents, popes. History is full of them, reflections of your potential. The acts of god's representatives on earth: the people given tutelage over it.

How very Harry Truman-esque of you. In your sty of contentment.


spin

sschlichter

I agree, it is very important not to bring your presuppositions to the text.

Taking Matthew,
he 'quotes' the OT about 55 times (some of the quotes are from the Hebrew text, not the Septuagint).
and makes numerous allusions throughout the entire book.
His insider Jewish language and anti-Jewish sentiment flags a possible recent break from Judaism.
The jury is still out on whether matthew was first written in greek but there is early and consistent assignment to Levi.

sschlichter

delegating responsibility is not passing the buck. God is ultimately the one taking responsibility and the one that need feel the results of sin so he is certianly not passing the buck.

personally, I am leary about those claiming to do God's work. You have to look at the fruit, not the words. Everyone claiming to be doing God's work is not. Most doing God's work do not need to claim it. Because the worst of people cling to religions to get power, does not invalidate faith. No one running for president claims to be an atheist because their is no power in it. it will not get them anywhere. They invoke God not because they fear God but because they need God to convince men.

it has nothing to do with the truth about God.

spin

Condemned with a pronoun. "[H]e" implies a single author. Your evidence suggests that that may not be the case.

You mean you wouldn't expect old English trimmings in a film about Robin Hood?

"[I]nsider Jewish language" needs to be demonstrated. "[A]nti-Jewish sentiment" was quite the thing in the Roman empire around the turn of the second century.

As Matthew was based on Mark and Mark was written in Greek in a Latin context, the jury still being out is because they have finished their job and gone home. When someone can produce real evidence that our Matthew was written in anything else but Greek improved on the Greek of Mark, then there could be a retrial. As is, the defendent is on his way to the chair.


spin

spin

Sin is another curve ball. Stick to the subject. God is responsible for the state of nature according to your religion.

Here comes the washing of the hands...

You're right. History is full of those fruits. People massacred for not being christian. People massacred for not being the right kind of christian. People being massacred for having things that christians want.

That's literally correct.

But it makes them feel good to.

Faith's great. If a person doesn't have faith, they can't be manipulated.

Uh-huh. So presidents who profess to be christians aren't. I guess popes and archbishops aren't either.

But christianity will.

And god convinces men, right?

So you think your arbitrary separations exonerate you and your god?


spin

ible

There is nothing arbitrary about saying there are good Christians and bad Christians. Christians have a role model---Christ. If a Christian isn't following the (supposed) words and deeds of Christ, then he's a bad Christian.

On the other hand, there is something arbitrary about saying there are good atheists and bad atheists. There is no role model, no standard, for an atheist.

The Dagda

No he came back to life, and then ascended to heaven like Elijah. We didn't kill him we only winged him obviously.

The Dagda

Er yes there is its called morality and it's what you get when you admit that the terms good and evil are superfluous. The laws of the land do generally inhibit crime as well. Even Jesus knew the difference between right on Earth and right in heaven.

spin

But sadly, you're in no position to make the distinction.

Do you mean to say that you don't think that Dubya for example thinks he's following his Jesus?

Correction. When you are told what to do by an entity who knows what the standards are, you have no ability to decide what is moral. A christian by necessity is amoral because they have no direct access to standards of morals. A non-christian who is engaged in the moral issues of society has the material with which to be moral. One is moral despite being christian (or not being christian), as the polemic around the slavery issue in America showed in the middle of the nineteenth century. Christian arguing with christian over morality makes morality outside the realm of christianity.


spin

sschlichter

I always find it humorous on this site how 'skeptics' think they do not have presuppostions. What you have is a different set of presuppostions. it is like a conversation between a bird and a fish - nowhere to talk. you point out that I presuppose that Matthew was primarily one author (which I do) but then willfully presuppose a drawing from Mark is a basis on Mark. There is much of Matthew that is not from Mark.

I actually agree on the Greek. there is no internal evidence that the greek is translated from Aramaic (so I have read, not that I could tell otherwise). I was referring to early claims that matthews sayings was written in Aramaic and I have no real reason to send the jury home because I cannot think of a motive for that claim to exist other than it is true or the person is mistaken.

Most Roman anti-Jewish sentiment was confused about Judaism. Matthew does not show an ignorance about Judaism such as claiming jews are baking small children for Passover, etc.

As far as Jewishness, Matthew brings up uniquely Jewish stages of Christs mission (1:5-6, 15:24). Matthew draws from mark but at least just as often, he does not and reflects a more literal translation from Hebrew than Mark. Based on Mark is a term dripping with presuppostions. there is much in Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark. There is no reason to me that they are not both based on something else (a body of shared oral sayings and teachings). I would also suggest that the similarities are based on shared personal experiences or close relationships with those that shared the experiences. Of course, you likely presuppose that is not the case. The 'basis' on Mark is presumed due to chronology and the presuppostion that Matthew did not know Mark and an extra few decades.

~Steve